opinionfandomcom-20200213-history
The Total Hypocrisy of U. S. Nuclear Foreign Policy
by user LionusUnleashed Make no mistake about it; the "Cold War" is not over. The somewhat less than aptly entitled battle continues to rage. In fact, if "The Cold War" was a Broadway Show...the only difference between "Opening Night"...back in the 1940's...and tonight's performance, would be clearly explained in the Playbll in the following manner: The Role of "The United States of America" will be played by "India"...and the Role of "The Soviet Union" will be played by Pakistan." Yes, Virginia, there is a set of circumstances existing between two bona fide nuclear powers, which is closer to erupting...and has been for at least a decade...than even during those last few moments before the Russian Navy opted to honor John F. Kennedy's blockade of Cuba. And yet...the United States is preparing to go to war with Iran, for the sole and stated reason that, "We will not tolerate a Nuclear Iran." (or even a NUKE-EWE-LER Iran...depending on whether the speaker has an IQ at least in the double digits.) We not only TOLERATE Nuclear India, and Nuclear Pakistan...but we SUBSIDIZE the nuclear programs of those two nations, in one way or another...and thus foster, if not encourage their nuclear activities. Let's take a much more detailed look at the absolute and total hypocrisy of the position of the United States in this respect. For all of its faults, and there are many...the Governemt of Iran is stable. How do we know this? Well...in the same manner in which the United States did all it could, short of invading Iraq, we could not internally destabilize Iraq under Saddam Hussein. We had scores of right-wing, neo-conservative think-tanks and action entities headquartered in Washington, DC, filled with Iraqi Ex-patriots, whose mission in life was to oust Saddam and take control of the country. The CIA recruited one internal Iraqi band of thugs after another, in an effort to orchestrate a coup d'etat. THAT didn't work either. In the end...only an unlawful, morally bankrupt invasion, based on lies and a campaign of misinfrmation was successful in toppling the Saddam government. Identical efforts are being, and have been put forward with respect to Iran, at least as early as 1980...with a similar lack of success. So...at the very least, the government of Iran is stable. The current President of Iran may be around for awhile...or, he might be replaced. However, the Ayatollahs are not going anywhere. What about Pakistan on the other hand? "President Musharif" didn't become "President Musharif" until after HE orchestrated a coup d'etat...and DECLARED himself "President. He leads today, not by virtue of his own popular support, or a belief among rank and file Pakistanis in the legitimacy of the government. He leads today, because he sold his soul to the devil (no pun intended) and traded the life and limited liberty of his Muslim Brothers...for a promise from the United States to keep him in power (presumably for as long as we feel we need him). Even the most reactionary right-wing American think-tanks will admit, at least privately, that before the U.S. invades Iran to take down one government...we might have to enter Pakistan militarily, in order to prop another government up. And rest assured, if Musharif stopped providing what the United States believes to be a sufficient amount of support in the bogus "war on terror," his little brown, camel-driving keester would have long ceased to be "President for Life." So...no nukes for a stable government we don't like, BUT...all the nukes in the world, for a government that could change hands in a virtual instant. Now...let's add a few more facts to the equation Iran, once again, by ANY realistic objective standard, is years, perhaps ten or more, away from devloping a nuclear weapon. But, Iran is a "State Sponsor of Terrorism." Perhaps...but Iran will be a State Sponsor of Terrorism, WITHOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS...and we are not invading them for THAT reason, are we? Why do we ACCEPT ANY nation being a "State Sponsor of Terrorism?" Shouldn't we be as concerned about Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, IN GENERAL...and invade them for THAT REASON? BUT...if we let Iran develop nuclear weapons...they will give them to terrorists! Ah...excuse me. WHERE IS OSAMA BIN LADEN? Tehran, perhaps? No. Caracas, maybe? Nope. (More on that later.) Again...by all accounts, Osama bin Laden IS IN PAKISTAN! Or, at the very least...bin Laden travels freely AND PROTECTED, back and forth between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Go with me on this...for just a moment. Pakistan has nuclear weapons...and next week, in response to India's latest test of a nuclear capable missile system (YESTERDAY, May 8, 2007, to be exact) will test fire its own next level delivery vehicle. Pakistanis not only do not believe in the legitmacy of the Musharif Regime...but would publicly declare him to be an infidel and give him Muhammad's version of a "Columbian Necktie" in a Karachi Minute, if given the opportunity. Are you with me? In the event that Musharif and his driver met up with an appropriately placed Improvised Explosive Device on their way to the office one morning...and the name of the NEW Leader of Pakistan started with AYATOLLAH...from WHICH "Ayatollah" do you believe Osama bin Laden would be better able to procure a nuclear device? An Ayatollah in Tehran WHO DIDN'T HAVE A NUCLEAR DEVICE...or, an Ayatollah IN ISLAMABAD...WHO HAS A FEW EXTRA just lying around? I wouldn't even be TOO confident that bin Laden would have to wait for Musharif to be deposed...for THIS reason. Dr A. Q. Khan...the "father of the Pakistani nuclear program," is ALSO the SAME Dr. A. Q. Khan who has admitted to being the "father of the Libyan nuclear program," the father of the North Korean nuclear program," AND the "father of the Iranian nuclear program." AND...it was MUSHARIF who PARDONED A. Q. KHAN...for this unlawful dispensation of nuclear technology to those countries. I say again...WHO IS THE LIKELY DISPENSER OF NUCLEAR DEVICES TO TERRORISTS? Iran...who has nothing to dispense...or, Pakistan, WHO HAS ALREADY DISPENSED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY TO TERRORISTS? The truth is...WE LOVE having a nuclear Pakistan AND a nuclear India...in order that we, the United States will ALWAYS be able to CONTROL those nations. If Musharif does NOT do what we want him to do in connection with the bogus "war of terror" or, deny any other request made of him...one or two timely and apprpriately placed contacts to the boys in Mumbai...and all of a sudden, India is testing a delivery vehicle that the Pakistanis didn't even know existed...and vice versa. The only thing we can't truly control...is whether on any given day, Musharif still has a body part upon which to place a hat. In THAT event...I will wager all that I may ever earn, that every American Troop currently deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and along the Southern Border of the United States, would all of a sudden be relocated to Pakistan for the purpose of taking down whatever government was then in place...and installing the next marionette who would operate as caretaker of the Pakistani nuclear program on our behalf. Let's try to sum this up... North Korea HAS nukes AND a delivery system that WILL REACH THE WESTERN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We tap dance around a six party table...and do nothing. Pakistan HAS nukes and a very elaborate program designed to enhance their delivery capability. WE PROVIDE DIRECT SUPPORT to the Pakistani nuclear program, DESPITE THE FACT that Musharif PARDONED the man responsible for exporting that same nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. India HAS nukes, and an even more elaborate delivery system. We not only provide direct governmental support to the Indian nuclear program...but also, American companies can't move ENOUGH jobs TO India, fast enough. Were it to come down to a point where India was in any way seriously threatened by Pakistan...who among us believes that given the increasing state of American investment in India...that we would not step into the middle of that mine field with both feet...and without our steel-toed boots? Former Russian States have HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of nukes WHICH THEY CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR. We play "what if" games...and essentially do nothing of any significant meaning or value. IRAN MAY HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON A DECADE FROM NOW. "We cannot and will not accept a nuclear Iran." Translation...Load up the tracer ammo and pass the press releases to "Tehran Tony"...cause we are COMIN' FOR YA! We are content to SUPPORT Pakistan's nuclear program, even though it is Pakistan (or elements within Pakistan) who operate as ARMED GUARDS for bin Laden, Zawahiri, Mula Omar, and the rest of the Al-Qaeda Crew. Musharif found Danny Pearl's killers IN MONTHS...AND CONVICTED THEM. Is there intelligent life among us who believe that Musharif HAS NO IDEA WHERE bin LADEN IS, RIGHT NOW? If the U. S. Foreign Policy regarding nucelar weapons had ANY LEGITIMACY AT ALL...we would have invaded PAKISTAN AND NORTH KOREA...YEARS AGO. I would like to extend a personal invitation to President Bush, to PROTECT THE UNITED STATES...by INVADING PAKISTAN, so that there will be NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR AL QAEDA TO GET THEIR HANDS ON...for at least the next decade. Something tells me I won't see an RSVP to that invitation, anytime soon. __NOEDITSECTION__ Category: Opinions Category: Opinions by User LionusUnleashed Category: May 16, 2007 Category: IRAN PAKISTAN NORTH KOREA NUCLEAR FOREIGN POLICY Opinions From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki. From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki.